NY Times: Ayn Rand's Influence Growing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
I can only pass on what a professor once said to me, that it is futile to argue over definitions.

I was just pointing out that Rand was very much against a moral obligation to serve other human beings and even more so against being forced to serve other human beings at gunpoint. Welfare would be a good example.

It’s a quandary, because if you truly value other people, you have to take from the unwilling in order to best help them. Some people believe in the Robin Hood model, while others are only concerned about their personal well being.[/quote]

There is no quandary, you have just swallowed altruism hook line and sinker.

You feel that they have the moral obligation to serve other people and you are willing to have them thrown into a cage or be killed if they resist.

42

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You have to be free to choose to help anyone is her main point. Being forced to help takes morality out of the choosing.

What if the force is in the interest of the greater good? If you can inconvenience 1% of the wealthiest in order to literally save lives that would otherwise not be saved, are you wrong to do so?

I think it ultimately goes to whether love or personal freedom are at the top of your value hierarchy. For me, love is usually more important, but not always. [/quote]

How do you measure greater good?

Hint: That has been tried and is logically impossible as far as we know.

What you are really saying is that you will substitute your judgment for somebody else’s and if he refuses to fork his income over he will, at the risk of repeating myself be imprisoned or killed.

Interestingly enough you so not like it when people deny you a piece of paper, but you are perfectly willing to take part of their income by force.

43

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

[/quote]

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

44

[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But that means you do not really value other people because you would respect their wishes too.

You are selfish and you do not even realize it.

No, it means the math is in favor of the people you are trying to help, vs the people that are inconvenienced by involuntarily providing the help. If the harm caused to the wealthy is 10% and the benefit produced for the poor is 90%, you are doing what is in the greater good.[/quote]

No you don’t.

That is a primitive welfare theory and you are actually 150 years behind the debate .

Give or take a few years.

45

[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But that means you do not really value other people because you would respect their wishes too.

You are selfish and you do not even realize it.

No, it means the math is in favor of the people you are trying to help, vs the people that are inconvenienced by involuntarily providing the help. If the harm caused to the wealthy is 10% and the benefit produced for the poor is 90%, you are doing what is in the greater good.[/quote]

And what if that’s unacceptable to the wealthy? Who decided that the wealthy and the poor are equally valuable to society?

This is why charity should be an entirely private matter, not mandated through progressive taxation.

46

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?[/quote]

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.

47

What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?

48

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.[/quote]

So, to be clear, I would be immoral for rendering aid to a man that the property owner was willing to let die? What a wonderful ethical system!

49

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?[/quote]

Helicopters would be cheap in this world…or you might become rich by allowing a toll way on your property.

50

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.

So, to be clear, I would be immoral for rendering aid to a man that the property owner was willing to let die? What a wonderful ethical system!
[/quote]

No, you’re not immoral for wanting to help a man. You are immoral for taking something that does not belong to you. Ultimately, you are the one who has to sleep at night…I think you’ll be fine. I am just pointing out the moral distinctions that need to be clear.

51

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?[/quote]

How could it possibly further my agenda to stop you from helping someone?

And that does not even address that extreme circumstances not only make bad laws bad also poor ethics.

52

[quote]Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?[/quote]

See ethics of liberty where he adresses that.

53

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?[/quote]

Pretty much that is correct. You as an individual looking to help the man and put out the fire can only do what is within your power to do to help him, if the only fire extiguisher is in the possesion of someone who does not wish to help, or give it to you so you can help, there is really nothing more you can do other than go find another fire extinguisher. Under no circumstances do you have the right to force another human being to do something against thier own free will, even if every fiber in your body believes it is the right course of action. Slipery slopes and all, this is precisely the mindset that got us to the point we are now. First the strong will rationalize taking your fire extinguisher to put out a burning man, next they will rationalize taking your money to feed and clothe and house a poor man.

Basically, it comes down to a couple things, do you wish free will? if you do, you must grant it to others with 100% impunity. Also your example is very very very far fetched. It’s the type of sensationalizing that hurts not helps societies. You want to set up a moral rule that will help a situation that has a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of never happening, and yet people will abuse that moral rule 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the time to force people to do things against thier will for thier own gain. The man dying because he was burned to death is an acceptable sacrifice so that men could live freely.

V

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.

So, to be clear, I would be immoral for rendering aid to a man that the property owner was willing to let die? What a wonderful ethical system!
[/quote]

Dude, a collectivist ethic allows for concentration camps, so if you want to compare individualism vs collectivism by its extremes, collectivism loses.

Badly.

Unless of course you like concentration and reorientation camps, in that case, two thumbs up!

55

you guys are getting, me interested in the book. Will have to find a copy

56

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?

Helicopters would be cheap in this world…or you might become rich by allowing a toll way on your property.[/quote]

Nope. The individual doesn’t own a helicopter, or posses the knowledge to build one from common house hold ingredients. And, I’m not interested in the pittance the person would be able to pay me. In fact, starvation could possibly free up that property.

57

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

How could it possibly further my agenda to stop you from helping someone?

And that does not even address that extreme circumstances not only make bad laws bad also poor ethics.
[/quote]

Well, you have no moral obligation to help, or allow help.

58

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.

So, to be clear, I would be immoral for rendering aid to a man that the property owner was willing to let die? What a wonderful ethical system!

Dude, a collectivist ethic allows for concentration camps, so if you want to compare individualism vs collectivism by its extremes, collectivism loses.

Badly.

Unless of course you like concentration and reorientation camps, in that case, two thumbs up!

[/quote]

Actually, I charge you guys with holding to the extremes. You envision a society that must allow for men dieing on the front lawns of disagreeable property owners, so as to avoid the possibility of concentration camps.

59

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?

Helicopters would be cheap in this world…or you might become rich by allowing a toll way on your property.

Nope. The individual doesn’t own a helicopter, or posses the knowledge to build one from common house hold ingredients. And, I’m not interested in the pittance the person would be able to pay me. In fact, starvation could possibly free up that property.[/quote]

But this is not reality. If you bar people from entry they will find an other way. You cannot stop people from pursuing their own interests no matter how hard you wish it.

But in the end, who cares? You will decide what it best for you and everyone will be happy regardless.

60

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.

So, to be clear, I would be immoral for rendering aid to a man that the property owner was willing to let die? What a wonderful ethical system!

Dude, a collectivist ethic allows for concentration camps, so if you want to compare individualism vs collectivism by its extremes, collectivism loses.

Badly.

Unless of course you like concentration and reorientation camps, in that case, two thumbs up!

Actually, I charge you guys with holding to the extremes. [/quote]

Guilty.

[quote]
You envision a society that must allow for men dieing on the front lawns of disagreeable property owners, so as to avoid the possibility of concentration camps.[/quote]

Wrong. This hardly ever happens in the real world. And even if it occasionally does it is still preferable to being forced at gun point to care for an other living human being.